It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Liberalism - Could it be caused by developmental delay?

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Wow. I like to think of myself as a conservative but you have just now crossed the line for good. This is an idiotic attack on someone else's belief system. It is the childish approach that many within other stringent groups such as established religion and so on take. Because to be quite honest with you DUDE, I could apply every single characteristic you just portrayed to the conservative.

You are trolling again and I'm going to do what I have only done one other time in my MANY years on this board (yes, another alias from well before this ones time). I'm putting you on ignore. You have ZERO to bring to the table. Absolutely nothing but spite filled hatred. Zero actual logic to back up the crap that spews forth.

I'm ashamed that you consider yourself a conservative. I'm embarassed for you personally because it is truly hard for me to believe that I would even come close to having some of the same ideals that you would have.

You are what makes great sites like ATS worse. Your presence makes this site worse. I'm done with you.

Goodbye

From a TRUE conservative and a TRUE American




posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
theres a debt because Bush decided to go to war and turn a SURPLUS (that the clinton administration created) into a 1.3 trillion dollar DEFICIT (given the war wasnt the major problem but when you spend 10mill on one rocket on a stinger you gotta wonder where the money goes eh?)



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mikolaj
 


Its just good for you that I am not some whiney liberal that would hit the alert button for breaking the T&C in your last post by calling me an.......
You are welcome!



1. If the current administration was fascist it would be GIVING money to car companies, instead it is following the truest ideals of capitalism, they produced a #ty product, managed their company poorly so they got bankrupted by competition, thats what happens in capitalism and thats how it (in theory) progresses the economy. if your going to say that you agree with your countries founding ideologies and then spout nonsense about the current administration being fascist for following them, then you sir, are a raging hypocrite. private production and planned economies are marks of socialism, not fascism. and loving freedom has nothing to do with whether or not your conservative or not, that wasnt my point, my point was that when people polarize due to extreme circumstances, your side tends to jump the more authoritarian way.

First, they did give them a bunch of money and then demanded to control the process in return. I am all for letting bad companies go bankrupt so someone with more sense can buy up the factories, etc and do a better job. What I am against is government interference in the process. Our founding fathers would have never done this.



2. Christianity and Indian?! you do know your history right? cus last time I check the Indians religion was probably the LAST one we discovered. Do i need to bring up the crusades? the silk road to China which introduced Buddhism to western culture? Trade with India which brought about Hinduism? And despite what you may think the seperation of church and state was important because your founding fathers didnt want the country they had worked so hard to create to become like the one people just left in europe because the church had helped turn it into an authoritarian oppressive #HOLE, Jefferson, Washington, Adams and many more all have been qouted stating that they were NOT fans of religion and in fact were very much opposed to the ideal of organized religion as it led to a theocracy, they put crap like that all over their buildings because unfortunatly this was not a view shared by the public.

No they didnt want the government interfering in religion, because religion had been controlled by the state where they came from.



3. before we discuss this i INSIST you take my advice and read it. Those people were also given no trail, for most there was no evidence at all of their involvement with terrorism. the patriot act is an infringment on the constitutional rights of an American citizen and a SEVERE infraction against the international bill of human rights, its application has been widely criticized throughout the world for a reason.

I guess that is why Obama hurried up and repealed it. NOT!



4. it has nothing to do with the government looking after you, it has to do with providing the basic necessities for life. the fact is that unfortunately people get left behind in a system like ours and you can be an unsympathetic prick and say their loss, but if it was you starving on the street, youd want some help getting back on your feet too asshole.

When did government become responsible for providing the basic necessities for life? I thought that was our job. Peope get left behind because they choose to not add to society.



5. Defending your country? tell me, what threat did Iraq pose exactly? even if they DID have weapons of mass destruction they didnt have the means to deliver them. What about Vietnam? you guys went in their guns blazing, operation rolling thunder killed an estimated 1.3 million civilians in North Vietnam (thats classified as genocide under united nations charter), perhaps you want to tell me the threat they possessed? How bout when you rocked panama? that had nothing to do with the canal at allowing American access to it did it? they had BONEFIDED WMDS DOWN THERE HMMMMM? argue what you want and i will listen but drop this "defending our country" bull#, your indescribably ignorant if you think that any country will attack a superpower, thats #ing suicide and they know it.

Well lets see. Sadaam decided to invade Kuwait which disrupted the oil supply, and he threatened to do the same to Saudi Arabia. How would you like to live in America with no oil. Vietnam was a fight against the advance of Communism. Should we just let communism take over the world? Iraq deserved to be invaded because they broke their cease fire agreement. What do you think would have happened to Japan if they pulled a bunch of stunts after WW2. Defending Iraq is like defending someone who got tazed after they ran from the police. If they would have just obeyed the law, they would have been fine.


[edit on 6/2/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


Thank you for ignoring me. I am going to make you a friend for showing such kindness and mercy. If you didnt like what I had to say you could have just walked away.

I doubt you could make a case the conservatives are developmentally delayed but if you can I suggest you go and make a thread about it.

For being a conservative you exhibit a lot of liberal issues like anger at anything that disagrees with your view of the world and a hate for freedom of speech when that speech offends you.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mikolaj
 


Well I guess we shouldnt have fought in WW2 because that also created debt. Next time we get attacked I am sure we can just roll over and cry about it and let them get away with it. You ought to be glad we got in WW2 or the whole world would be speaking some form of GermaJapanese.

Oh, I am pretty sure that congress also approves war expenses, so it wasnt just Bush. I am pretty sure the Liberal congress just approved a bunch more for Iraq and Afghanistan, so I guess we cant blame everything on Bush now can we.


[edit on 6/2/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
So do you mean the definiton of the word Liberal in the dictionary? Or do you mean the definition of the Liberal people who hijacked the word?


What I am asking is what is your definition of a Liberal, or Liberalism generally. You want to have a discussion about Liberals yet you have not defined what it is you are talking about.

If you want to define a Liberal as an idiot who takes money from earners and gifts it to lazy spenders, then yes, a Liberal is an idiot with no sense for economics. But this is not the definition of Liberalism when the term was created by Rawls.

As it turns out, it's pretty tricky defining a 'Liberal', in fact it took John Rawls a couple hundred pages to get his point across.

But this much it is safe to say: there is far to great a diversity of perspective along the nuanced landscape of political ideology to claim that the entire Liberal spectrum (which you have not even defined yet) is condemned to foolishness because somebody placed an arbitrary label on them.

Rawls was no fool. Read his book and you will be convinced, I guarantee.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikolaj
Couldnt disagree with you more Hemisphere. I encourage you to read the Patriot Act (in its entirety if you havent done so already) then read a document from 1930s Germany called the Enabling Act. Youll find some pretty interesting parallels between the two documents and might drop this idea that your parties are all Liberal when you consider that this was the document that allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power.
Btw, Churchill was a drunk, a habitual drug user and a failure as a politician in the years before and after World War 2, you might want to consider qouting someone with a little more credibility.


Hello mikolaj.

I'm not a Bu#e, Bush was not a conservative. Much of what Bush did to our rights and constitution have been adopted and furthered by Obama. It's been going on since his campaign.

Netroots Activists Mad at Obama for Spy Bill Flip-Flop

How are those Gitmo extraditions going? Out of our hemisphere out of mind? (Sorry, I couldn't help throwing in "hemisphere") And the scale down of the war, er..... wars.... er what's up with that?

I just don't see much of a difference. I didn't vote for either man, McCain, Gore or Kerry for that matter. No conservatives there.

Thanks for bringing up the 30's. What was going on in Italy and Germany leading up to the war?



Fascism arose in Germany, Italy and Spain as a reaction to socialism, communism, or both. In all three countries the leftists are the first to take power from. the Monarchy’s. The new government is leftist but not communist. - from Hitler's Germany - Wikiversity


Wasn't Mussolini building "the corporate state"? Where was it I heard the US purchased a major automobile manufacturer? And a bank or two if I’m not mistaken.



Hitler also oversaw one of the largest infrastructure-improvement campaigns in German history, with the construction of dozens of dams, autobahns, railroads, and other civil works. - from Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia


That sounds vaguely familiar too. I apologize for the Wiki content mikolaj but I think you would agree that those two historical interpretations are rather widely accepted. I do think you've mistaken me as a Bush supporter and mistaken Bush as a conservative. I would agree that there are disturbing parallels to the WWII era occurring at present. These paths lead to fascism followed by socialism the first time around. I don’t see the current administration steering the country away from that. Neither did the previous administration. These were sequential steps in the process.

I'm glad you were there with Churchill, we would never have known. Your characterizations might be correct, I don't know. Being a failure as a politician is not much of an insult. I think the quote stands on its' own despite what you might think of the man. George Carlin and JFK both had some brilliant thoughts and they shared similar shortcomings. I'll be interested in the HBO production "Into the Storm" portraying Churchill that's running now. They tend toward the "liberal" and we'll check it out.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Modulus
 


Well let me start by saying that the current definiton of political Liberalism is probably not the same as one in a book written in 1971.

But here are a few points of things that would mostly be supported by the general term of Liberals.
1. Redistribution of wealth
2. Pro-Choice
3. Social engineering
4. Greater interference in the private sector
5. Unpracticle levels of environmentalism
6. A huge government to manage everything and provide for peoples needs/wants.. basically a desire for greater Socialism
7. Anti-War
8. Anti-America
9. Anti-Business
10. Anti-Gun

To name the top 10 I can think of off the top of my head.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude

So you're saying that this is your definition of a Liberal:


Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
1. Redistribution of wealth
2. Pro-Choice
3. Social engineering
4. Greater interference in the private sector
5. Unpracticle levels of environmentalism
6. A huge government to manage everything and provide for peoples needs/wants.. basically a desire for greater Socialism
7. Anti-War
8. Anti-America
9. Anti-Business
10. Anti-Gun


If this is how you choose to define Liberal, then fair enough, I would agree with you in some sense that such a person would be a complete fool.

But fortunately the above definition has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberalism. It is merely your perception of Liberals, a perception that is severely distorted from the truth of the matter.

Political ideology cannot be defined merely in terms of legislative choices; there is a philosophical conception regarding the meaning of life, the purpose of the human species, the purpose of government, the question of free will, personal autonomy verses personal responsibility etc.

If you want to learn the true definition of Liberalism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, read Rawls. The definitions have not changed an iota since his publication.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Modulus
 


Well a definition of a term is one thing, but observing what people want when they vote for "Liberal" candidates is another. Go look at the definition in the dictionary for Liberal. It sounds great, but it is nothing like the people that claim they are Liberals. I think we are arguing over semantics. You look at the term liberal from somone who has a bit of sense defines it and say its great, I look at the people who see themselves as liberal and the things they vote for and say it is child like behavior. So we arent really disagreeing other than what the meaning is and how you define it.

This is why I said earlier that they hijacked the word. Really maybe instead of calling themselves liberals they should rename themselves to what they really are... Socialcommunists. But once again you have to deal with the limitations of the child at hand. They dont want to accept their negative behavior and have someone put a label on them. It is just like a person with ADD thinking they are an Indigo Child, because that makes them feel special. See my point?

Like I said before, Liberals are great marketers. Who else would use the term Pro-Choice to describe something that is in reality Pro-Baby Murder, and the go on to say its for the choice of the mother and disregard the choice of the child to live?

[edit on 6/2/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


I see what you're saying, and I must agree with you, people do like to label themselves for whatever reasons, and perhaps there are a large number of people calling themselves Liberals who in fact betray their namesake.


Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Well a definition of a term is one thing, but observing what people want when they vote for "Liberal" candidates is another.


Thats true, but then who is at fault, the principles of Liberalism or those people who have falsely hijacked the term? When you say that Liberalism is a form of developmental disorder, then you are clearly talking about the principle, or philosophy of the ideology, and not about those people who have, for better or worse, labeled themselves as such.

What you are speaking about in this thread has nothing to do with Liberalism at all, but rather, you have taken issue with a number of individuals who happen to have falsely represented the principle.

In fact, I'm sure you will find that if you question the motives and underlying principles of American 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' that the overall objectives are startlingly similar, if not identical. These ideologies only distinguish themselves from one another by the means these principles should be implemented.

If you ask anyone around the world how they feel about murder, they will surely tell you that it is wrong. But to some people, honour-killings are not murder, but restore dignity, some people will say that the capital punishment is murder, whilst others will say that it is justice.

Unfortunately running government, maintaining the economy, stimulating education, alleviating poverty, are all much more complicated matter than the question of what constitutes murder. Some say welfare will alleviate poverty and thus stimulate the economy, some people say welfare bails out the lazy at the expense of everyone else.

Tomaretoes and tomaytoes really...



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Modulus
 




What you are speaking about in this thread has nothing to do with Liberalism at all, but rather, you have taken issue with a number of individuals who happen to have falsely represented the principle.


This is absolutely correct. I am forced to use a term commonly understood to represent a certain group of people who hold certain views. How many replies would I get if I said named it "SocialCommuninism - Could it be a developmental disorder?" No one would reply, becauase "Liberals" would not identify with the term, because they have been tricked into calling themselves liberal by those who hijacked the word. It is just like tricking a 2 year old into believing the thing in your hand disappeared when really you just hid it in your lap.



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
It is just like tricking a 2 year old into believing the thing in your hand disappeared when really you just hid it in your lap.


No, you have done this. You mistitled your thread to attract viewers.

So a bunch of fools have hijacked the term Liberal and have employed it incorrectly. So what, you're going to go and do exactly the same thing?

And I take issue with your assumption that the way you have described Liberals is the way that they are commonly perceived, or even the way liberals perceive themselves. That is how you perceive liberals.

If you want to discuss Liberalism, then please do so, otherwise change your thread title.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by The_Modulus]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Modulus
 


One I cannot change it because after a certain point and time you cant edit an OP or any post for that matter. I just checked and there is no edit button on the OP. Even if I could change it I would not, because I didnt do anything wrong. They refer to themselves as Liberals and I will refer to them however I please. If that offends you, I am sorry. Maybe call up the Liberals and tell them to change their name, because they hijacked the name.

[edit on 6/2/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Modulus
 


Maybe you should take this time to defend your idea of Liberalism and define it however you like. Then people can discuss it. OR just start your own thread and I will visit and give it a star and a flag. Feel free to u2u me when you get it up and running, and thanks for making me think.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mtok7
 


I register with a particular party because I believe in the notion of power in numbers



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


I Hope you aren't Implying that I have no Beliefs? Because I Believe a Little of "Both Sides" I believe it is wrong to Murder a fellow Human,But that is what WAR IS. But I Believe Abortion Is Not Right. So if Killing in one sense is right how can you tell those who want to abort their fetus they can't? I Choose FOR Myself NEITHER.

But To Believe in something Because You are told to is Brainwashing. That is Why they keep the masses Divided. Divide and Conquer!

But That is SUPPOSED to be the Great thing About America, We are Supposed to Build a Life of Our Choice. As Long as You respect others Lives the way they Choose, the Government shouldn't step into our Lives.

I believe in the Constitution, But if the Police Officer I knew as a Teacher in school is right, We are No Longer Living under the Constitution, But the Articles of Confederation.
So I support Choices as Long as You hurt nobody but yourself. People do stupid things, and WE ALL Make Mistakes. Get over your Leftist/Rightist crap! But its has been said before. I doubt I will care about this Thread anymore. Dude, get over it, there's no way Every Single Person Would EVER believe the same as you. What Fun would this "Experiment called 'Life' Be if Everybody Believed the exact same thing."



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


You're right, I probably should try to explain my conception of liberalism, but as I've mentioned it's pretty difficult


I'll try to write a summary over the next day and maybe start a new thread, I'll be glad to u2u the link once it's up.

Thanks for the discussion



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


I like the Idea of your thread, but it got me thinking.
Maybe you need to look at it another way.
Where Liberals seem like impetuous youth, maybe conservatives are just Old, Tired and Cranky, with a progressive loss of cognition, memory and critical thinking.
Liberals would seem like children as they are energetic, have new ideas, want change and demand action.
Old tired and cranky conservatives would hate change, action means work and new ideas are not for old dogs.
Tired, old, cranky conservatives, constipated by their own largesse, constant inaction and often riddled with alzhiemers (when the liberal two year old children present them with their many failures). Old, tired and cranky ideologies with their self appointed authority over said liberal two year olds as some kind of parent authority(an authority that often ignores any sense of entitlement of said liberal youth) would indeed be aggitated, annoyed and frustrared by the youthful exuberance of liberalism that makes conservatives realise that they are indeed, old, tired and cranky. With no energy, unfit for change and lacking ideas of any kind other than to curse the youth.

I mean, it could be just an old tired perception. Could it not.

I hope I fitted in as many cheap shots as your OP.
Great Thread S&F.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


LOL, it was a pretty good shot. I felt a year older after reading it.
I highly recommend you create a thread based off of your post. But you know you liberals are good marketers. So basically you just became the Pepsi to my Coke.. lol, if were old enough in the 80's to see this.


[edit on 6/4/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join